§ Sir F. THOMSONI beg to move, in page 4, line 36, to leave out Sub-section (1).
This is the Clause dealing with the resumption of holdings, and we suggest that Sub-section (1) should be left out, the effect of which would be that the law with regard to resumption would be restored to what it was between 1886 and 1911. Section 19 of the Act of 1911 said that occupation by a landlord, for the purpose of personally residing thereon, of a holding being his only landed estate, shall be deemed to be a reasonable purpose for resumption. That gave the Land Court no discretion. If a man came forward and asked for resumption of a holding being his only landed estate, the Land Court was bound to give it to him. It has been argued that that went rather far, and we think it is fair to go back to the law as it was between 1886 and 1911 and leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the Land Court, as it is under Section 2 of the Act of 1886. The 2352 Government apparently desire that it shall be made mandatory on the Land Court that occupation for personal residence shall not be a reasonable purpose for resumption. They want to have it so that the Land Court shall have no discretion but shall he bound to refuse outright, to a man who comes forward and asks for resumption on the ground of personal residence. They are not quite satisfied with the wording of their Clause, and I notice that they have an Amendment on the Paper which proposes to leave out the words "deemed to be." The Lord Advocate rather admitted in Committee that if these words remained in, all that happened was that there was no presumption in favour of resumption, but that the matter was still left at the discretion of the Land Court. Therefore, they did not think the words "deemed to be" were satisfactory, and they now propose to leave them out. The Clause as they desire to have it would simply read:
The occupation by a landlord, for the purpose of personally residing thereon, of a holding being his only landed estate, shall not be a reasonable purpose,and so on. We think that that is going too far, and that it is reasonable to restore the law to what it was between 1886 and 1911. My hon. Friends below the gangway have introduced a Bill on more than one occasion to deal with this matter. They have wanted to get back to the law prevailing between 1886 and 1911, and that is what we also suggest, but now the Government propose to go further and to require the Land Court to say "No" to a man who asks for resumption on the ground of personal residence. There is a point that has been made before, that it is rather absurd that if a man has a second landed estate, of whatever size, the Land Court should still have a discretion, and that it is only where he has no other landed estate that the Land Court should have no discretion. That is rather an absurd state of affairs. There is really no very pressing grievance in this matter, because I notice that in the past 18 years, since 1912, there have only been 151 cases on this ground.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONOnly!
§ Sir F. THOMSONThat is over 18 years. I admit that there were as many as 26 eases in one of the years after the 2353 War, but I would ask the Liberal party to come up to date and to take note of the fact that in 1927 there were only six such cases that came before the Land Court, in 1928 nine, and last year only three, so that the matter is not one of very pressing moment from their point of view. Anything that would make it quite impossible for the Land Court to allow resumption in the case, say, of the winding-up of a trust estate or where money was required to be raised for death duties, is, we think, mistaken, and to put this embargo on the Court is going too far. Leave it to the discretion of the Land Court. It is unreasonable for this House to lay it down that the Land Court ought to be bound to say "No" to any man, however good his case may be, who asks for resumption. Under the 1886 Act the Land Court is bound to take into consideration all reasons for resumption which are concerned with the good of the holding or the estate. We say that that is right and proper, and, in order to effect that object, we ask the House to leave out Sub-section (1).
Earl of DALKEITHI beg to second the Amendment.
The Clause goes further than is necessary. It seems rather unreasonable that an owner, who may be no better off than his tenant, should be unable to get possession of the holding, or to sell it if he desires to do so. There is the Clause for the furtherance of occupying ownership, and, I may add, it is hoped soon to have the provision of long-term credits in Scotland, which would also be of assistance to the tenant if this Amendment were accepted.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIf this Amendment were carried, it would literally destroy what we are attempting to do in this Bill. This has been a long-standing grievance, and while it may be true that the numbers in question are not large, even supposing there were only 100, why should that 100 be permitted to do this? If the Land Courts are given an intimation that they may exercice their discretion in the matter, because that is what it amounts to, this week-end holiday resort business will be perpetuated. Why should a man whose life-work, whose living, is in the cultivation of the holding, suddenly find that his holding is taken away from him, and sold to someone else who only desires 2354 it as a week-end health resort? The thing is grotesque and impossible. The Amendment would perpetuate that system, and I hope that we shall vote upon it at once.
§ Major ELLIOTIt was only after a good deal of consideration that the Government arrived at the final form of their own Clause, and we were all staggered in the Scottish Standing Committee to find the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State at loggerheads upon a Clause which, after months of consideration and careful drafting, was put on the Paper. It shows how intricate these questions are, and the need for some sort of discretion. If the Secretary of State with all his administrative experience, the Lord Advocate with all his legal experience, and the Under-Secretary with his careful scrutiny of the facts, were not able to produce a satisfactory Clause when the Bill came to the Scottish Standing Committee, what proof have we that we have a satisfactory Clause now?
The Under-Secretary asked, why should a man's holding, which was his life-work, be taken away from him? He has left a great many things in the 1886 Act for which the holding can be taken away. The discretion is left to the land courts on a number of points. The owner can resume possession, not merely for a school, a church, planting and roads, but for the good of the estate. This is left to the landlord, naturally at the discretion of the Land Court. The Under-Secretary proposes to allow that to remain for the good of the estate, subject to the discretion of the Land Court, but he says it would be quite wrong to allow the Land Court discretion in the one case where a person may desire to resume possession in order to reside on the holding and to cultivate it for himself. Why should we assume that the Land Court would be more foolish than this House, and allow a man to resume possession merely for week-end purposes? Why not remove all discretion from the Act of 1886? The fact is that this has become erected into a sort of standard, a sort of flag of contention, like the ancient football and the ancient matches which were fought between two ends of a village, until at the end of the day many were left killed and injured and the ball was generally lost. The Government are taking up this attitude because of some 2355 point of honour between themselves land the Liberal party. We are bringing forward a practical suggestion that the question should be left to the discretion of the Court.
§ Sir R. HAMILTONMay I be allowed to say a few words in regard to this question, as it is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest during the last seven or eight years. I have made several ineffective attempts to get a Clause of this sort put on the Statute Book, and I am glad that at last there is a chance of security being given to the crofter. My hon. Friends above the Gangway have been arguing that we should restore the discretion as it was given by the Act of 1886, but may I point out that that discretion was taken from the Land Court by a discretion, considered of very doubtful value, but at any rate, a decision which bound the Land Court, and deprived them of the discretion which, otherwise, they would have been able to exercise. [Interruption.] I think, I am correct in what I am saying. It was a legal decision by which the Land Court considered themselves bound, and which, over and over again they said, took from them all discretion. [Interruption.] I am pointing out that there was nothing taken away by Act of Parliament, but, by a decision of the Court, there was taken away a discretion which the Land Court considered they had before and had exercised. They referred to the fact over and over again, and very often had to give decisions contrary to what they would have liked to have given had they had that discretion. This Clause, I hope, will succeed in putting it beyond any doubt that a tenant cannot be removed from his holding because the holding is being sold over his head. May I refer very shortly to a Debate which took place in this House in April, 1924, when the following Resolution was passed unanimously:
That this House views with alarm the large number of evictions of smallholders in Scotland owing to the resumption of their holdings by purchasers, and calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to assure to smallholders to security of tenure which it was the object of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts to confer.
§
My hon. Friends above the Gangway had five years in which to restore that security, and what do we see? To-day they are still objecting to the efforts which are being made to restore it. The hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) said during that Debate:
I should like to say that I sympathise most heartily with the Resolution … We have clearly got a gap in the structure of security of tenure.
The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) said:
I should like to add my vote to the chorus of harmony with which this Resolution has been received in all quarters of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1924; cols. 570 and 578, Vol. 172.]
I only hope that that chorus of harmony will prevent the necessity of us having to divide on this Amendment.
§ Major ELLIOTWhat does the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) make of Section 19 of the Act of 1911, where it is quite definitely laid down that
The occupation by a landlord for the purpose of personally residing thereon … shall be deemed a reasonable purpose as aforesaid.
Mr. R. W. SMITHWe have been told that this right was taken away by a decision of the Court. The decision of the Court was the interpretation of the Act of 1911, not the interpretation of the Act of 1886. We have always said that under the Act of 1886 it is competent for a Land Court to decide whether resumption can be given on the grounds that a man desires to reside on the holding. We want the Act to decide that point, but by the Clause in this Bill the Court will not be able to take that into account as a reasonable ground for resumption. The argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is no use, because the decision of the Court was an interpretation of the Act of 1911.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'deemed' in line 38, stand part of the Bill".
§ The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 51.
2357| Division No. 201.] | AYES. | [2.59 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Alpass, J. H. | Attlee, Clement Richard |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Ammon, Charles George | Ayles, Walter |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Chrlstopher | Angell, Sir Norman | Barnes, Alfred John |
| Barr, James | Hore-Belisha, Leslie. | Pybus, Percy John |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Isaacs, George | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Johnston, Thomas | Ritson, J. |
| Benson, G. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Kinley, J. | Rowson, Guy |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Lathan, G. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Brothers, M. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lawrence, Susan | Sanders, W. S. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Lawson, John James | Sandham, E. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Leach, W. | Scott, James |
| Calne, Hall-, Derwent | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Scurr, John |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Chater, Daniel | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Church, Major A. G. | Lowth, Thomas | Shield, George William |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lunn, William | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Cove, William G. | McElwee, A. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Daggar, George | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Dallas, George | McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McKinlay, A. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Duncan, Charles | McShane, John James | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sorensen, R. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Manning, E. L. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Mansfield, W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Marley, J. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Marshall, Fred | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Mathers, George | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Matters, L. W. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Gillett, George M. | Maxton, James | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Glassey, A. E. | Messer, Fred | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gossling, A. G. | Mills, J. E. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Gould, F. | Montague, Frederick | Walker, J. |
| Gray, Milner | Morgan, Dr, H. B. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Gren[...]ell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morley, Ralph | Watkins, F. C. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Mort, D. L. | West, F. R. |
| Hall. J. H. (Whitechapel) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hardle, George D. | Palin, John Henry. | Williams Dr. J. H (Llanelly) |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Paling, Wilfrid | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Haycock, A. w. | Palmer, E. T. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Perry, S. F. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Harriotts, J. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Pole, Major D. G. | |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ho[...]man, P. C. | Price, M. P. | Mr. T. Hend erson and Mr. Charleton |
| NOES. | ||
| Albery, Irving James | Everard, W. Lindsay | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Falie, Sir Bertram G. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Ferguson, Sir John | Salmon, Major I. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Fielden E. B. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Savery, S. S. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Buchan, John | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Inskip, Sir Thomas | Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Marjor[...]banks, Edward | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester) | |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace. |
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ This Amendment carries out another undertaking which was given in Committee. Its object is to make it clear, 2359 instead of leaving it in doubt, that resumption on the ground of personal occupation by the landlord is not to be sanctioned by the Land Court.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSThis Amendment is much more important than the few words devoted to it by the Secretary of State would indicate. We are narrowing the law as it now stands, and making it worse. We are laying it down that a man who is actually the owner of a piece of land and who may wish to occupy that land himself shall not do so under any consideration. That is so retrogressive a step that I should think even hon. Members opposite must realise that it is thoroughly bad. In these days we ought not to lay down rules which are too strict. It is not a case merely of making the law clear; what we are doing affects the position of the Land Court. They have to come to a decision on these matters, and the omission of these two or three words, which allow them to take a rather wider outlook, is a definite injustice to the Land Court in the discharge of their duties. It indicates that the action of the Land Court in the past has not been satisfactory. From what I heard in the Scottish Committee upstairs that is not the case, and I feel that we can perfectly well leave these matters to the Land Court. They have carried out their duties with great honesty of purpose, and have done a great deal of good on the whole. By laying down rules and regulations too strictly you are doing a great injustice to the Land Court. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is not necessary from a legal point of view to keep these words in the Clause. We have had no reason given why they should be taken out, and there has been absolutely no argument put forward to show why the time of the House should be taken up in this way. A proposal of this kind does not make the Bill any better, and it is a definite slight on the Land Court. I am sure even hon. Members below the Gangway cannot defend this proposal.
§ Amendment agreed to.